Russia open to peace with Ukraine but ‘our goals' must be achieved, says Kremlin
Meanwhile, Moscow continues to intensify its long-range attacks on Ukrainian cities, with more drones launched in a single night than during some entire months in 2024, and analysts say the barrages are likely to escalate.
Mr Peskov told state TV reporter Pavel Zarubin: '(Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin has repeatedly spoken of his desire to bring the Ukrainian settlement to a peaceful conclusion as soon as possible. This is a long process, it requires effort, and it is not easy.
'The main thing for us is to achieve our goals. Our goals are clear.'
President Donald Trump has recently hardened his stance towards Moscow (Alex Brandon/AP)
The Kremlin has insisted any peace deal should see Ukraine withdraw from the four regions that Russia illegally annexed in September 2022 but never fully captured. It also wants Ukraine to renounce its bid to join Nato and accept strict limits on its armed forces, demands Kyiv and its Western allies have rejected.
Mr Trump threatened Russia on July 14 with steep tariffs and announced a rejuvenated pipeline for American weapons to reach Ukraine, hardening his stance towards Moscow after months of frustration following unsuccessful negotiations aimed at ending the war.
The direct Russia-Ukraine negotiations in Istanbul resulted in several rounds of prisoner exchanges, but little else.
Mr Trump said he would implement 'severe tariffs' unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days. He provided few details on how they would be implemented, but suggested they would target Russia's trading partners in an effort to isolate Moscow in the global economy.
In addition, Mr Trump said European allies would buy 'billions and billions' of dollars of US military equipment to be transferred to Ukraine, replenishing the besieged country's supplies of weapons. Included in the plan are Patriot air defence systems, a top priority for Ukraine as it fends off Russian drones and missiles.
Doubts were recently raised about Mr Trump's commitment to supply Ukraine when the Pentagon paused shipments over concerns that US stockpiles were running low.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump has taken bullying to a whole new level – and not just with tariffs
You know that famous bit of chaos theory where a butterfly flutters its wings in the Amazon and a hurricane results in another part of the world? It's the idea that a minute change in complex interlinking structures can have huge consequences elsewhere. Well, forget butterflies in the Amazon and replace it with an electronic ankle tag put on a 70 year old Brazilian bloke who was considered a flight risk, and the whirlwind it has produced thousands of miles north in Washington DC. The 70 year old is Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil who is facing prison for his attempts to mount a coup to stop Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking over the reins of power in 2023 after the Brazilian general election. Donald Trump and Bolsonaro back in the day were kindred spirits: swashbuckling, anti-establishment wrecking balls who were going to make their respective countries great again, even if that meant refusing to accept the results of each country's respective democratic elections. Now this won't be the first sentence written which has the words Trump and chaos alongside each other. The first six months of his presidency have given endless examples of surreal moments. Some might argue that tariffs policy, where import penalties have gone up and down with dizzying rapidity, is a prime example of chaos theory. Just look at what has unfolded this week. Dozens of countries have been punished for failing to reach agreement with the US. We've seen a small section of Amazon rainforest felled for newsprint to explain the tariffs policy. The arguments have become familiar. America has been ripped off by its friends and neighbours for too long, with non-tariff barriers by all and sundry putting the US at a trading disadvantage. Only by the US imposing tariffs will those trade imbalances be corrected. And at Trump's famous (or maybe that should be infamous) 'liberation day' event in the White House rose garden the size of the tariff to be imposed was in direct correlation with the size of the trade deficit. It was a blunt instrument and terribly calculated, but you could see the theory. So what has this to do with Jair Bolsonaro? Well, President Trump has now imposed Brazil with crippling 50 per cent tariffs on all goods exported to the US that will remain in place unless and until the charges against Bolsonaro are dropped. But hang on, I hear you say, aren't tariffs imposed depending on size of the trade deficit (and between Brazil and the US there is more or less no surplus or deficit on either side)? And what the hell business is it of Donald Trump to interfere in the judicial independence of another country? Isn't this the independent supreme court in Brasilia going about its work – wheels of justice and all that? Yes, I grant you, these are good questions. But this is becoming the preferred weapon of an authoritarian president: impose blunt force trauma by thwacking over the head with devastating financial penalties if you don't do what I want. It's not just Brazil. Canada too is now facing increased tariffs from 25 up to 35 per cent on certain goods. Why? Because it has announced that – like the UK – it will recognise Palestine if certain conditions aren't met by the Israeli government. If you're next question is 'why isn't he threatening the same to us seeing as we are in pretty much the same boat as Mark Carney's government in Ottawa?' then all I can offer you is a shrug emoji. The former US president, Theodore Roosevelt, used to talk about the 'bully pulpit' enjoyed by the inhabitant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. By it he meant a president's unrivalled ability to shape the national conversation. When you spoke from that pulpit you had the ability to command the nation's attention and bully your enemies in a way they never could to you. Trump has taken that to a whole different level. There isn't much that is under-reported about the doings of Donald Trump in these first six months in the White House, but the shakedown – and it's hard to know what other word to use – of some of America's biggest law firms has had scant attention. On the most spurious grounds Trump threatened to ban them from doing all government work worth billions of dollars unless they agreed to do pro bono work for causes dear to the president's heart. A couple of firms have agreed to each do $125 million of free work for him. A lawyer I know at one of these firms said it was extortion, pure and simple. Harvard University is looking to make peace with Trump for $500 million. A number of media companies who had big mergers in the balance have coughed up millions of dollars after the president sued them on the most vexatious grounds. CBS, to their eternal discredit, have axed The Late Show with Stephen Colbert – because Colbert has been a longstanding thorn in Trump's side, and presumably executives at the parent company, Paramount, thought offering him up as roadkill would grease the wheels of their proposed multi-billion dollar -merger with Skydance Media. And guess what? It worked. The deal was given the go-ahead last week. Trump crowed about the demise of Colbert on Truth Social. Colbert who is always punchy addressed his being cancelled by saying to the president: 'Go f*** yourself'. Brazil for the moment is using more diplomatic language, but it is not bending either; a rare example of a country that is prepared to stand up to Trump. Canada has also to work out what it intends to do. Blackmail is an ugly word, but it does look as though regardless of whether you are a sovereign nation, an independent media company, an academic institution or a law firm, if you don't do what Donald Trump demands then you'd better be prepared for the consequences.
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
A day in the life, in photos, of one family's search for food in Gaza
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
New Statesman
27 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
